Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by the Weather Forums! Please take the time to register and join our community. Feel free to post or start new topics on anything related to the weather or the climate.


Photo

El Nino Watch

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#751
Phil

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:40 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

The buoy data was bumped upwards in the 40s/50s? I've never seen any evidence of this. I know the ship data depicted significant warming in the early/mid 20th century, and was subsequently homogenized to the buoy data in large part until the 1970s.

Wait what, when did I say there was buoy data in the 1940-1950s? I was clearly referring to this earlier statement from you... Again, re-iterating myself here, this statement is wrong, the ERSSTv4 data was actually adjusted upwards in the 1940s, at the peak of the last warming period. While the upward adjustment didn't last nearly as long as the downward adjustment in the 1920s and 1930s, the amplitude was 2x as high as the preceding era's decrease, therefore it roughly offsets the change to ERSSTv4 vs ERSStv3b in the 1920s & 30s.
"The bouy data was adjusted to boost synchronicity with the ship intake data after the late 1980s, and yet this ship data was adjusted downwards significantly from 1920 to 1945, which "coincidently" happens to coincide with the previous global warming period."

nclvaRFaXJADG.tmpqq.gif


Somehow I misread your first post and thought you were referring to buoy data that existed before the late 1970s (which I was unable to locate).

That said, this still doesn't make any sense to me, because the buoy fraction spiked from ~ 10% in the mid 1980s to ~ 50% by the early 2000's, yet those temperatures were adjusted downwards, while almost the entirety the recent upward adjustments (due to the growing buoy proportions) occur after 2003. So, what could have been so cold-biased as to require an adjustment large enough to outweigh the upward adjustments for the increase in the buoy proportion during that time? And, why is this out of phase with the ERI/Hull data adjustments in the early/mid 20th century?

As a result of this, the ERSSTv4 trend from 1998-present is literally twice as large as the OISSTv2 and HADSST3 datasets. More than anything, this looks like an attempt to linearize the post-1950 temperature trend.


Any actual, publishable proof of this or are we just making things up yet again to fit our own preconceived notions? What about those published papers which tackle and dismantle the ERSSTv4 adjustments?... yeah I don't see any of those either... I'm also still waiting on all this "proof" of GISS temperature adjustments. If you feel their adjustments are unsubstantiated, you should consider publishing on it, you have enough credentials, knowledge, & apparently more than enough time to rant about it here, so why not?


John Bates happens to an award-winning NOAA scientist, as does Roy Spencer. When the Karl et al paper was published, dozens of well respected scientists took issue with the methodology employed, including at least two here at my university.

I don't know if you converse with climate scientists as frequently as I do, but if so, then I'm sure you've observed the growing suspicion through which these homogenization processes are analyzed through by the scientific community. Try not to isolate yourself in a bubble of like-minded thinkers.

I also find it funny how the new RSS data actually shows a little more warming than GISS in the satellite era, yet relative silence from anti-AGW crowd.


What? :huh:

No it doesn't. It depicts almost twice as much warming, with the biggest divergence over the oceans (shocked..not).

In fact, GISS is an extreme warm outlier even relative to NCDC & HADCRUT4:

RSS TLT:

MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%2

GISS:

GISS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With

Also note the recent GISS update featured an adjustment twice as large as its previously published margin of error. How can anyone with a working brain believe these claims of "superior accuracy" when every d**n adjustment is larger than the published margin of error? Absurd.

The fact that these sources of microwave emission have been around for an extended period of time doesn't change the fact that these are significant sources of natural interference wrt microwave radiance emissions which will provide even more uncertainty (than there already is) w/ satellite data. Voltage is measured on the satellite, and from voltage microwave emissions from oxygen (radiance) can be somewhat inferred throughout large depths of the atmosphere, however, microwaves are also emitted from the land and ocean surfaces (including vegetation), clouds, and this also is somewhat dependent on elevation, therefore they actually do contaminate the O^2 microwave emissions. And of course from radiance temperature may be interpreted.


They're more than just "somewhat" inferred. It's actually a fairly straightforward process, utilizing the most basic pre-einsteinian equations, most having been known since the inception of classical mechanics. The challenges are almost all anthropogenic in nature (orbital drift, sensor degradation, etc).

Also, natural influences like vegetation and orographics aren't contaminants because they actually alter the global temperature trend. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This isn't like UHI which actually contaminates the data because it's extrapolated thousands of miles between stations.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#752
Phil

Posted 24 April 2017 - 10:33 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

"You wake up so d**n early. :lol:"

Lol, yea I was putting some of the finishing touches on a presentation I have later today regarding Orbital, Geographical and Background Climate Influences on ENSO since the Paleocene. Fun stuff!


Sounds interesting! Shoot me a link sometime if you're able.

Right now my area of research is LGM-to-Holocene variation(s) in the annular modes/ENSO, and their influence(s) on the global energy budget (climate).

Preliminary results suggest the annular modes have a very large impact on the global heat budget. When the annular modes are negative, particularly over the winter hemisphere, there's more radiative loss at the pole via reduced cloud cover there (and weakened poleward heat advection), more vigorous tropical convection due to decreased tropical static stability, stronger global wind speeds, and stronger/more contracted Hadley Cells. The enhanced wind speed and stronger tropical convection promote increased evaporative cooling of the sea surface and increased latent heat release in the upper troposphere (where it can then be radiated out). So the negative annular mode state naturally promotes global cooling over time. The opposite is true with regards to the positive state of the annular modes.

This also may explain the recovery from the LIA and much of the warming over the last 100+ years as well. The southern annular mode has trended strongly positive over the last few centuries, and the northern annular mode has also been in a much more positive state since the early 1980s versus the 1950s-70s, which was preceded by another positive stretch from the 1920s into the 1940s, which was also a period of global warming.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#753
Phil

Posted 24 April 2017 - 10:53 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Both annular modes have generally trended positively since the 1970s. This could (theoretically) explain the weakened tropical convection and reduced upper tropospheric latent heat release observed since the 1970s. It could also explain the observed decrease in stratospheric water vapor.

Trends in the annular modes:

94F900D8-D6ED-49EE-9A44-E02410D14785_zps

1A9B77A4-E90F-4299-841C-B4DFAED67861_zps
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#754
Webberweather53

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:10 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Somehow I misread your first post and thought you were referring to buoy data that existed before the late 1970s (which I was unable to locate).

That said, this still doesn't make any sense to me, because the buoy fraction spiked from ~ 10% in the mid 1980s to ~ 50% by the early 2000's, yet those temperatures were adjusted downwards, while almost the entirety the recent upward adjustments (due to the growing buoy proportions) occur after 2003. So, what could have been so cold-biased as to require an adjustment large enough to outweigh the upward adjustments for the increase in the buoy proportion during that time? And, why is this out of phase with the ERI/Hull data adjustments in the early/mid 20th century?

As a result of this, the ERSSTv4 trend from 1998-present is literally twice as large as the OISSTv2 and HADSST3 datasets. More than anything, this looks like an attempt to linearize the post-1950 temperature trend.



John Bates happens to an award-winning NOAA scientist, as does Roy Spencer. When the Karl et al paper was published, dozens of well respected scientists took issue with the methodology employed, including at least two here at my university.

I don't know if you converse with climate scientists as frequently as I do, but if so, then I'm sure you've observed the growing suspicion through which these homogenization processes are analyzed through by the scientific community. Try not to isolate yourself in a bubble of like-minded thinkers.


What? :huh:

No it doesn't. It depicts almost twice as much warming, with the biggest divergence over the oceans (shocked..not).

In fact, GISS is an extreme warm outlier even relative to NCDC & HADCRUT4:

RSS TLT:

MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%2

GISS:

GISS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With

Also note the recent GISS update featured an adjustment twice as large as its previously published margin of error. How can anyone with a working brain believe these claims of "superior accuracy" when every d**n adjustment is larger than the published margin of error? Absurd.


They're more than just "somewhat" inferred. It's actually a fairly straightforward process, utilizing the most basic pre-einsteinian equations, most having been known since the inception of classical mechanics. The challenges are almost all anthropogenic in nature (orbital drift, sensor degradation, etc).

Also, natural influences like vegetation and orographics aren't contaminants because they actually alter the global temperature trend. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This isn't like UHI which actually contaminates the data because it's extrapolated thousands of miles between stations.

 

 

Ok I'm willing to accept the first point regarding when the buoy adjustments were made, but it essentially comes down to adjusting the ship data to buoys or vis versa, the former involves altering virtually the entire record, whereas the latter only is applicable for the last 20 years or so. I think w/ ERSSTv5 they're planning to change some of these adjustments along w/ updating the dataset w/ ICOADS release 3.0 that added tens of millions of surface observations, with a dramatic increase in global coverage in the 1860s, and they're (thankfully) getting rid of the extra optimal smoothing which severely degrades the quality of the modern data. Although think for the earlier portion of the record (pre-1950), this is a valid approach, & as I've noticed in the quality control calibrations for my ENS ONI, the pre-1950 ENSO event amplitudes are very reasonable, but, ERSSTv4's quality degrades circa late 20th century/satellite era (which isn't surprising given their omission of satellite data), that's particularly important for the southern hemisphere EOT structures.

 

I showed you a plot w/ a 12-month running average of the 2 datasets with linear regression since 1979, the overall trends are virtually identical, even if you move the base period around some, the difference in results isn't statistically significant. You showed the exact same data, and tried to say they're somehow significantly different. I really don't understand what you're trying to do here. Oth, I definitely won't argue that GISS is warmer than the HADCRUT & NCDC datasets near the end of the record, and amongst the three long term datasets, it's the one I trust the least esp given that Hansen has worked on this dataset I really don't understand their reasoning behind switching ocean dataset interfaces twice (HADISST-OISSTv2 then ERSSTv3b then ERSSTv4) all of which progressively showed more warming w/ each new dataset change.

 

 

It's been well established that earth's surface, clouds, and other media have thermal emission spectra that are similar to oxygen, which is assumed to be a homogeneous tracer in the earth's middle atmosphere for studying middle troposphere temperatures. While it may superficially seem like a straightforward process, there's also inherent error in actually obtaining any temperature to begin with wrt satellites. As aforementioned & noted by Spencer & Christy (1990), there actually is some interference from these other sources, and then of course the canonical nuances due to instrument calibration, orbital drift, etc., and even long term trends in layers above/immediately surrounding the troposphere, including the obvious long-term stratospheric cooling, only add to the uncertainty that's already there before any temperature data is actually attained. The point being here yet again the satellite, remote sensing instruments very likely have higher structural and observational uncertainties than surface stations as I pointed out earlier via Kevin Cowtan's work w/ a collection of 100 ensemble members from both HADCRUT4 & RSS.


  • Phil likes this

#755
Webberweather53

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:27 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Sounds interesting! Shoot me a link sometime if you're able.

Right now my area of research is LGM-to-Holocene variation(s) in the annular modes/ENSO, and their influence(s) on the global energy budget (climate).

Preliminary results suggest the annular modes have a very large impact on the global heat budget. When the annular modes are negative, particularly over the winter hemisphere, there's more radiative loss at the pole via reduced cloud cover there (and weakened poleward heat advection), more vigorous tropical convection due to decreased tropical static stability, stronger global wind speeds, and stronger/more contracted Hadley Cells. The enhanced wind speed and stronger tropical convection promote increased evaporative cooling of the sea surface and increased latent heat release in the upper troposphere (where it can then be radiated out). So the negative annular mode state naturally promotes global cooling over time. The opposite is true with regards to the positive state of the annular modes.

This also may explain the recovery from the LIA and much of the warming over the last 100+ years as well. The southern annular mode has trended strongly positive over the last few centuries, and the northern annular mode has also been in a much more positive state since the early 1980s versus the 1950s-70s, which was preceded by another positive stretch from the 1920s into the 1940s, which was also a period of global warming.

 

 

Here's a link to my presentation, I could have gone into more detail but was somewhat limited by the audience I was presenting this to and how much time I had to complete it.

 

 

https://docs.google....1d8ec1cb53_0_25


  • Phil likes this

#756
Phil

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:07 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Ok I'm willing to accept the first point regarding when the buoy adjustments were made, but it essentially comes down to adjusting the ship data to buoys or vis versa, the former involves altering virtually the entire record, whereas the latter only is applicable for the last 20 years or so. I think w/ ERSSTv5 they're planning to change some of these adjustments along w/ updating the dataset w/ ICOADS release 3.0 that added tens of millions of surface observations, with a dramatic increase in global coverage in the 1860s, and they're (thankfully) getting rid of the extra optimal smoothing which severely degrades the quality of the modern data. Although think for the earlier portion of the record (pre-1950), this is a valid approach, & as I've noticed in the quality control calibrations for my ENS ONI, the pre-1950 ENSO event amplitudes are very reasonable, but, ERSSTv4's quality degrades circa late 20th century/satellite era (which isn't surprising given their omission of satellite data), that's particularly important for the southern hemisphere EOT structures.


That would be an improvement, but if the "selective" homogenization procedure applied to the buoy data before/after 1998 remains in a player on the trend-line, I'm not going to bite.

My gut usually doesn't lead me wrong, and my gut tells me they're going to find a way to steepen the 1998-present trendline once again. Let's see if I'm right.

I showed you a plot w/ a 12-month running average of the 2 datasets with linear regression since 1979, the overall trends are virtually identical, even if you move the base period around some, the difference in results isn't statistically significant. You showed the exact same data, and tried to say they're somehow significantly different. I really don't understand what you're trying to do here.


I think you used the RSS TMT data, not the TLT data, because I'm getting a completely different result, both w/ a linear fit and a running mean.

Oth, I definitely won't argue that GISS is warmer than the HADCRUT & NCDC datasets near the end of the record, and amongst the three long term datasets, it's the one I trust the least esp given that Hansen has worked on this dataset I really don't understand their reasoning behind switching ocean dataset interfaces twice (HADISST-OISSTv2 then ERSSTv3b then ERSSTv4) all of which progressively showed more warming w/ each new dataset change.


I agree with this. It's also structurally dissimilar from year to year.

It's been well established that earth's surface, clouds, and other media have thermal emission spectra that are similar to oxygen, which is assumed to be a homogeneous tracer in the earth's middle atmosphere for studying middle troposphere temperatures.


Within the M/W frequencies they're (broadly) similar, but they're each decipherable through differences in localized spectral intensities and distribution, and they don't change enough on a multidecadal scale to alter the trendline much even if they weren't accounted for, relative to the (potential) effects of orbital drift.

The latest verification analysis on UAHv6 also suggests a much reduced margin of error, on par with the (supposed) uncertainty estimates of the surface data. Though given the monstrous adjustments to the latter, I have absolutely zero faith in those analyses.
  • Webberweather53 likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#757
Phil

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:11 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Here's a link to my presentation, I could have gone into more detail but was somewhat limited by the audience I was presenting this to and how much time I had to complete it.


https://docs.google....1d8ec1cb53_0_25


Awesome, I look forward to watching it (once you give me access to it). :)
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#758
Webberweather53

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:13 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Awesome, I look forward to watching it (once you give me access to it). :)

 

Oh haha, it was just a presentation we had in class for geological oceanography class, no one actually recorded it unfortunately


  • Phil likes this

#759
Phil

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:15 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Oh haha, it was just a presentation we had in class for geological oceanography class, no one actually recorded it unfortunately


Ah, gotcha. Reading, watching, whatever...same information, different neurological conduit. :P
  • Webberweather53 likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#760
Webberweather53

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:16 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

That would be an improvement, but if the "selective" homogenization procedure applied to the buoy data before/after 1998 remains in a player on the trend-line, I'm not going to bite.

My gut usually doesn't lead me wrong, and my gut tells me they're going to find a way to steepen the 1998-present trendline once again. Let's see if I'm right.


I think you used the RSS TMT data, not the TLT data, because I'm getting a completely different result, both w/ a linear fit and a running mean.


I agree with this. It's also structurally dissimilar from year to year.


Within the M/W frequencies they're (broadly) similar, but they're each decipherable through differences in localized spectral intensities and distribution, and they don't change enough on a multidecadal scale to alter the trendline much even if they weren't accounted for, relative to the (potential) effects of orbital drift.

The latest verification analysis on UAHv6 also suggests a much reduced margin of error, on par with the (supposed) uncertainty estimates of the surface data. Though given the monstrous adjustments to the latter, I have absolutely zero faith in those analyses.

 

While the UAH adjustments are generally less frequent than the surface data, when they're adjusted, the changes are pretty substantial... The latest UAH adjustment was on the order of 0.2-0.3C globally, which blows the surface adjustments out of the water 



#761
Phil

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:23 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

While the UAH adjustments are generally less frequent than the surface data, when they're adjusted, the changes are pretty substantial... The latest UAH adjustment was on the order of 0.2-0.3C globally, which blows the surface adjustments out of the water


Yeah, you have a point there. The last two UAH adjustments were very large (one was for degradation of the AQUA radiometer, whole the other for orbital drift (and many other factors). That having been said, the UAHv6 adjustment was truly revolutionary in many ways, and is a demonstrable improvement over UAHv5.6.

It could be that the satellite folks underestimate their structural uncertainties just like the surface data folks seem to do, because in the long run, they surface & satellite datasets have been adjusted almost equally.
  • Webberweather53 likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#762
SilverFallsAndrew

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:40 PM

SilverFallsAndrew

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10024 posts
  • LocationSilverton, OR

Speaking of the CFSv2. It is trending much weaker with the potential Nino. 


  • Jesse likes this

Snowfall

2016-17: 47.2"

2015-16: 11.75"

2014-15: 3.5"
2013-14: 11.75"
2012-13: 16.75"
2011-12: 98.5"

 

 

 


#763
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 11:01 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Is this another "coincidence"? So, as we're currently observing the largest seasonal Greenland ice gain on record for the 21st century, suddenly the DMI has changed its reference period from 1990-2013 to 1981-2010. This eliminates the big 2011/12 melt year, and brings the mass balance average up substantially.

dmigrc3b6nlandeismassebilanzgrafikc3a4nd

If a scientific theory is sound, you shouldn't have to statistically manipulate your data to prove it. These warmists have shown that when they (eventually) go down, they'll do so kicking and screaming.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#764
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:04 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Let's look at the tropical convective behavior during the last multidecadal -NAM/-SAM regime (polar blocking), which lasted from 1948-78. This was also a period of global cooling. Note how the equatorial Pacific convection is stronger relative to the IO/Indo domain and the South American domain, with the strongest lift centered over the dateline:
33B2330F-D96D-48D4-833F-5B0DEE90CA28_zps

Now let's look at the last 30 years, which represents a multidecadal +NAM/+SAM regime, under global warming. The complete opposite signature arises, with notably reduced Pacific convection and invigorated IO/Indo/South American convection overall, especially during their monsoonal states:
83A3B1FB-5F23-4348-AB63-2CAD585A2A13_zps

This indirectly confirms the idea that net heat absorption occurs under the +NAM/dateline subsidence regime, and that net heat release occurs under the -NAM/dateline convection regime.

This also makes sense in theory, because the +NAM is marked by a decline in tropical convection and reduced overall wind speeds from 65N to 60S, which reduces evaporative cooling of the tropical oceans, hence also reducing subsequent latent heat release aloft during convection. This also reduces tropical cloud cover. The opposite occurs during the -NAM/-SAM regime, which is marked by an increase in tropical wind speeds, convection, evaporative cooling of the oceans, latent heat release, and overall tropical cloud cover.
  • happ likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#765
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:15 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
This also (theoretically) explains the signature(s) noted in the paleoclimate data, which depicts increased tropical Pacific convection and strong polar blocking during periods of global cooling, and reduced tropical Pacific convection and strong polar vortices during periods of global warming.

It also explains the weakened IO/Indo and S-American monsoons during periods of global cooling, and visa-versa during periods of global warming.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#766
happ

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:16 PM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2905 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

Let's look at the tropical convective behavior during the last multidecadal -NAM/-SAM regime (polar blocking), which lasted from 1948-78. This was also a period of global cooling. Note how the equatorial Pacific convection is stronger relative to the IO/Indo domain and the South American domain, with the strongest lift centered over the dateline:
33B2330F-D96D-48D4-833F-5B0DEE90CA28_zps

Now let's look at the last 30 years, which represents a multidecadal +NAM/+SAM regime, under global warming. The complete opposite signature arises, with notably reduced Pacific convection and invigorated IO/Indo/South American convection overall, especially during their monsoonal states:
83A3B1FB-5F23-4348-AB63-2CAD585A2A13_zps

This indirectly confirms the idea that net heat absorption occurs under the +NAM/dateline subsidence regime, and that net heat release occurs under the -NAM/dateline convection regime.

This also makes sense in theory, because the +NAM is marked by a decline in tropical convection and reduced overall wind speeds from 65N to 60S, which reduces evaporative cooling of the tropical oceans, hence also reducing subsequent latent heat release aloft during convection. This also reduces tropical cloud cover. The opposite occurs during the -NAM/-SAM regime, which is marked by an increase in tropical wind speeds, convection, evaporative cooling of the oceans, latent heat release, and overall tropical cloud cover.

 

Our scientist in residence B)  


  • Phil likes this

#767
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Our scientist in residence B)


Lol, thanks. Once a nerd, always a nerd. 🤓

I think this would be of particular interest to you, given the tendency for a strong subtropical jet and a wet SW US during episodes of global cooling. Perhaps the pseudo Niño Pacific background state is the legitimate mode of operation during these periods?

Interesting food for thought there..
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#768
happ

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2905 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

Phil, are you in graduate school?  



#769
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:26 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Phil, are you in graduate school?


Ha, I wish, but not yet. I won't start the MS/PHD process until approximately 18 months from now, since I completely changed my major early last year.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#770
happ

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:28 PM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2905 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

Lol, thanks. Once a nerd, always a nerd.

I think this would be of particular interest to you, given the tendency for a strong subtropical jet and a wet SW US during episodes of global cooling. Perhaps the pseudo Niño Pacific background state is the legitimate mode of operation during these periods?

Interesting food for thought there..

I would be thrilled if cooling is possible.



#771
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:32 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I would be thrilled if cooling is possible.


Well, if you're interested in following tropical convection, then tropical tidbits is a great website. The greens are indicative of enhanced convection, the oranges are indicative of reduced convection: http://www.tropicalt...4&xpos=0&ypos=0

It's also notable that the dateline low frequency regime has slowly started to shift since 2012, with IO subsidence increasing in frequency over the last decade, relative to the dateline. The Atlantic has also begun to leave its multidecadal warm state, but that process has also been slow and non-linear.
  • happ likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#772
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 02:06 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Changes are afoot in the tropical circulations. Westerly anomalies are now propagating over the IPWP/Maritime domain.

u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#773
Jesse

Posted 28 April 2017 - 02:37 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14571 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Changes are afoot in the tropical circulations. Westerly anomalies are now propagating over the IPWP/Maritime domain.

u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif


Is this a Niño-ish signature or no?

#774
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:08 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Is this a Niño-ish signature or no?


Yeah, it's definitely more Niño-like. A solid swing in the IO circulation as well, with the easterlies at 60E.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#775
Jesse

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:19 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14571 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Yeah, it's definitely more Niño-like. A solid swing in the IO circulation as well, with the easterlies at 60E.

 

That's a shame.



#776
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:53 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

That's a shame.


There's no guarantee that it locks in and/or represents a new background state. For the moment it looks intraseasonal.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#777
Jesse

Posted 28 April 2017 - 05:26 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14571 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

There's no guarantee that it locks in and/or represents a new background state. For the moment it looks intraseasonal.

 

That's good. Whatever it takes to avoid going back to the 2014-16 background state.

 

Although it sounds like you think that even if we do end up with a Nino, it will be different than recent ones.



#778
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 05:31 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

That's good. Whatever it takes to avoid going back to the 2014-16 background state.

Although it sounds like you think that even if we do end up with a Nino, it will be different than recent ones.


Yeah, this isn't anything like 2014 or 2015. Both of those years were beastly with the IO convection. This year is exactly the opposite in that regard.
  • Dan the Weatherman likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#779
Jesse

Posted 28 April 2017 - 05:37 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14571 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Yeah, this isn't anything like 2014 or 2015. Both of those years were beastly with the IO convection. This year is exactly the opposite in that regard.

 

When was the last Nino year with this kind of tropical convective state?



#780
Phil

Posted 28 April 2017 - 05:49 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

When was the last Nino year with this kind of tropical convective state?


The most recent examples I can find are the early 1990s. In particular, there's some similarity to 1980, 1991, 1993...and that's about it for the satellite era.

Also, just to compare this year with 2014 and 2015, the differences couldn't be more enormous across the tropical eastern hemisphere. Much less IO/Indo convection this year along with cooling in the high latitudes, both of which are affecting the wavetrain.

Today:

anomnight.4.27.2017.gif

2014:

anomnight.4.28.2014.gif

2015:

anomnight.4.27.2015.gif
  • Dan the Weatherman and happ like this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#781
Dan the Weatherman

Posted Yesterday, 01:55 AM

Dan the Weatherman

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • LocationOrange, CA

The most recent examples I can find are the early 1990s. In particular, there's some similarity to 1980, 1991, 1993...and that's about it for the satellite era.

Also, just to compare this year with 2014 and 2015, the differences couldn't be more enormous across the tropical eastern hemisphere. Much less IO/Indo convection this year along with cooling in the high latitudes, both of which are affecting the wavetrain.

Today:

anomnight.4.27.2017.gif

2014:

anomnight.4.28.2014.gif

2015:

anomnight.4.27.2015.gif

 

It appears as if having the contrast of somewhat cooler than average water in the northeast Pacific and warmer water in the lower latitudes of the eastern Pacific helps lead to a more active mid-latitude jet stream pattern with more frequent and stronger Pacific storms, whereas the abnormal warmth in the northeast Pacific during 2014 and 2015 led to an ultra-dominant stable high pressure pattern that contributed mightily to the drought in CA.

 

I am hoping this SST pattern continues into the future and that we don't revert back to a 2014-2015 SST pattern anytime soon!


  • Phil likes this

#782
Phil

Posted Yesterday, 08:30 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

It appears as if having the contrast of somewhat cooler than average water in the northeast Pacific and warmer water in the lower latitudes of the eastern Pacific helps lead to a more active mid-latitude jet stream pattern with more frequent and stronger Pacific storms, whereas the abnormal warmth in the northeast Pacific during 2014 and 2015 led to an ultra-dominant stable high pressure pattern that contributed mightily to the drought in CA.

I am hoping this SST pattern continues into the future and that we don't revert back to a 2014-2015 SST pattern anytime soon!


I'd consider the cooler NPAC (and high latitudes in general) as more of an effect than a cause of the pattern. I'd argue the cause is a combination of reduced IO convection relative to the WHEM and a slew of upper atmospheric processes.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#783
Phil

Posted Yesterday, 02:20 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11630 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Big WWB upcoming, along with a shift in the global tropical circulation.

This will warm the IO, cool the Indo-China/W-IPWP, and possibly force an oceanic Kelvin wave if it persists long enough. If this wave cycles in under 20 days, then it'll probably fail to ignite the move to El Niño.

u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#784
happ

Posted Yesterday, 09:42 PM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2905 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

http://stormsurf.com...t/current.shtml

"Longer Range MJO/WWB Projections:  
OLR Models: As of 4/28 a weak Active MJO pattern was in effect over the KWGA. The statistic model projects it fading and gone 2 weeks out with a weak Inactive Phase fading over the Maritime Continent and tracking east into the West Pacific. The dynamic model depicts a weakly Active pattern holding for the next 15 days with the Inactive Phase building in the Indian Ocean but confined there. All this suggest that the previous pattern of the Inactive Phase of the MJO constructively integrating with the remains of La Nina appears to be faded out and a neutral ENSO Pattern taking hold. 
Phase Diagrams 2 week forecast (ECMF and GEFS): (4/29) The ECMF model indicates the Active Phase of the MJO was very weak over the East Pacific and is forecast to build some then tracking east into the Atlantic over the next 2 weeks. The GEFS model depicts the same thing initially but with the Active Phase holding position over the East to Central Pacific. This model runs about a week ahead of what occurs down at the surface. 
40 day Upper Level Model: (4/29) This model depicts a weak Active Pattern was over the West Pacific. It is to track east into Central America 5/9. A moderate Inactive Phase to set up in the west 5/5 and is to track east to Central America 5/25. A moderate Active pattern to follow in the West Pacific 5/19 tracking east to the East Pacific through 6/8 and beyond. This model runs about 2 weeks ahead of what happens at the surface. 
CFS Model - 3 month (850 mb wind): (4/29) This model depicts the Active Phase of the MJO was fading over the KWGA with weak west winds anomalies in play. Beyond the Active Phase is to ease east and pulse again 5/15 with a possible Westerly Wind Burst on the dateline 5/7-5/15 attributable to an Equatorial Rossby Wave. The Inactive Phase is to move in 5/22-6/8 with neutral wind anomalies setting up. After that the Active Phase is to start taking control on 6/10 with light west anomalies building holding through the end of the run on 7/26. The low pass filter indicates La Nina is to be gone on 5/13 (previously 5/6-5/8) with El Nino taking hold 5/30, (previously 5/16-5/22) but much weaker than previously forecast. In fact, latest long range runs from the CFS suggest this to only be a weak Modoki event. That actually makes more sense given the weak warm water reservoir in the West Pacific.

CFSv2 3 month forecast for 850 mb winds, MJO, Rossby etc


  • Phil likes this